/CONSIDERATIONS 


ANSWER 


TO    THE 


CONTAINING    ', 

MR.  MADISON'S  INSTRUCTIONS   TO 
MR.  MUNROE. 


IRREPREHENSA   DABAT   POPULO    RESPONSA    PELENTI. 


ALBANY:  W 

FRIXT,.EI>  BY  E.  AND  E.  HOSFORD,  FOR  TfiE  AUTHOR. 
J807,       ' 


O  / 


C) 

•    • 


To  the  People  of  the  State  of  New- York; 

THE  following  sheets  are  dedicated  as  a 
subject,  if  not  of  instruction,  at  least  of  reflec- 
tion, before  they  again  plunge  into  a  war,  without 
duly  weighing  its  principles  and  merits  ;  and  who 
by  experience  have  learnt  the  difficulty  of  over- 
turning established  customs,  as  well  as  having  been 
witnesses  to  the  dire  effects  that  have  been,  and 
ever  will  be  felt,  when  attempts  are  made  to  sub- 
stitute novel  forms  or  doctrines,  in  lieu  of  old 
customs  and  privileges.  To  the  prudence  of  the 
people  who  enjoy  so  large  a  share  in  the  Uniony 
and  who  have  so  much  at  stake,  and  whose  pe- 
culiar interests  I  am  more  acquainted  with  than 
those  of  the  Southern  States,  I  have  addressed 
myself,  in  hopes  that  under  existing  circumstan- 
ces, they  will  pursue  a  firm,  candid  and  unpre- 
judiced line  of  conduct,  conformable  to  truth,  hon- 
or, morality  and  integrity,  without  which,  the 
measures  of  a  country  are  corrupt,  and  its  gov- 
ernment disposed  of  by  intrigue,  which  is  the  rapid 
precursor  of  anarchy  and  ruin. 

BUZURG  MIHIR. 


MG2730 


CONSIDERATIONS,  &c. 


I 


N  a  country  where  the  professions  of  Printer  and  Editor, 
are  combined  with  the  pursuits  of  criticism,  it  requires 
more  than  common  consideration,  before  a  writer  ventures 
to  disclose  his  opinions  to  the  world  and  publicly  avow  his 
sentiments.  Amidst  the  various  consolidation  of  employ- 
ments that  frequently  characterize  Americans,  I  deem, 
the  above  to  be  more  prejudicial  and  injurious  to  truth  and 
reason,  than  any  other  cause  that  can  be  alledged.  In  sta- 
ting this  opinion,  I  hope  not  to  be  misunderstood,  as  con- 
veying a  stigma  on  the  liberty  of  the  press,  or  the  erudition, 
of  a  critic,  for  on  the  contrary,  I  am  too  sensible  of  the  ben- 
efits of  the  one,  while  I  know  how  to  appreciate  the  value 
of  the  other,  so  it  is  only  the  abuse  and  not  the  use  of  a  good 
that  I  consider  and  regret.  Candor  from  the  critic  has  gen- 
erally been  deemed  a  futile  and  fallacious  expectation,  though 
there  are  many  whose  abilities  command  our  respect  ;  are 
•vve  then  to  look  for  it  here  ?  where  it  is  interwoven  with 
interest,  speculations,  designs  and  politics — where  it  appears 
like  a  motley  vest  of  fiery  red,  jealous  green,  or  envious 
yellow,  displaying  a  lustring  die,  constantly  misleading  our 
senses  and  deceiving  ater  sight. 

If,  in  the  most  favorable  light,  we  contemplate  criticism 
with  attention,  and  diligently  examine  whether  it  is  free 
from  a  rival  enmity,  stupidity,  the  short-lived  hope  of  ex- 
isting by  another's  fame,  or  to  catch  the  public  eye,  to  en- 
rich the  private  purse,  we  find  it  not  perfect,  but  too  fre- 
quently partaking  more  or  less  of  those  faults.  How  then 
is  any  moderation  or  discretion  to  be  expected  where  all  our 
worldly  interests  present  themselves  at  once,  and  hurry  us 
on  to  adopt  not  that  which  is  thought  right,  but  that  which 
will  be  most  advantageous,  or  best  answer  the  immediate 
purposes  of  pique,  party,  profit  or  ambition. 


This  is  not  the  only  evil,  habit  has  rendered  abuse  famil- 
iar, and  it  is  to  be  lamented  that  the  critic  is  constantly  lost 
in  the  reviler.  So  depraved  and  confirmed  is  the  present 
taste,  that  scurrility  is  sought  after  with  avidity,  and  the 
more  it  is  used  the  more  it  appears  to  be  relished.  The 
cook  profits  by  pleasing  the  palates  of  his  guests,  and  vic- 
tims of  licentious  liberty  must  be  offered  up  to  satisfy  the 
voracious  aj/peuUjs.  of  a  coarse  multitude.  The  press  and 
critics,  scarce  cool  from  the  warmth  of  an  election,  were  ea» 
si«y  -K-i'xd  by  the  conduct  of  the  L d  ;  it  was  a  propi- 
tious event  to  vivify  the  cause  of  turbulence,  and  was  adroit- 
ly seized  by  the  geniuses  of  discordance.  The  type  still 
moist,  was,  with  customary  facility,  arranged  by  the  artist, 
and  the  ready  letters  easily  slided  into  habitual  orthography. 
The  superlative  system  of  superlative  degrees  was  again  re- 
sorted to  ;  synonymous  words  perverted  the  idiom  ol  our 
language,  and  abstrusely  insinuated  inferences  were  unwar- 
rantably deduced  from  premises.  Such  a  period  is  not  the 
most  propitious  to  examine  causes,  or  calmly  trace  their  ef- 
fects, nor  is  it  more  favorable  to  discant  on  measures  that 
appear  to  be  prejudged,  where  conclusions  are  drawn,  and 
on  which  the  future  destinies  and  actions  of  the  United  States 
seem  to  hang  ;  but  if  there  is  a  moment  for  beneficient  in- 
terposition, it  is  surely  the  present  ;  if  there  is  a  moment 
seriously  to  investigate  and  weigh  the  truth,  it  is  the  pres- 
ent ;  if  there  is  a  moment  that  offers  itself,  attendant  with 
every  good,  and  by  which  incalculable  evils  may  be  avoided, 
it  is  probably  the  present,  and  it  is  a  duty  to  seize  it. — This 
exordium  marks  me  not  as  a  warrior,  nor  i.m  I  induced  by 
speculative  opinions,  to  try  the  chance  of  ringing  the  chan- 
ges of  fortune  by  hazarding  what  I  possess.  If  slander  hints 
I  have  an  interest  in  preserving  peace,  I  will  disappoint  her 
malice  by  allowing  it,  but  it's  no  other  interest  than  that  ev- 
ery man  possessing  property  and  independence  in  the  north- 
ern states,  has  in  common  with  myself,  and  I  do  not  wish 
to  see  it  deteriorated  or  held  up  by  modern  profligacy  as  a 
pharo  bank,  that  may  be  punted  at  with  impunity  ;  I  do  not 
wish  to  witness  here  the  distressing  scenes  of  many  ruined 
and  a  few  enriched,  nor  the  disgusting  language  of  despera- 
does realized,  when  they  state  they  cannot  be  worse  off,  but 
may  be  better  ;  I  do  not  want  to  see  property  afloat ;  the 
faith  and  justice  of  the  country  contaminated,  or  its  interest 
or  honor  insulted.  If  there  is  an  opportunity  of  preserving 
peace  consistent  with  honor,  policy  i.nd  interest,  the  public 
•vveal  surely  demands  it,  and  I  presume  it  will  not  be  advan- 


ccd  that  it  is  the  interest  of  the  northern  states  of  Am'erida 
headlong  to  plunge  themselves  into  a  war  with  Great-Bri- 
tain, or  that  it  will  be  an  acquisition  and  an  event  to  be  wish- 
ed for,  as  bringing  with  it  advantages  immediately  benefi- 
cial in  themselves,  or  ultimately  productive  of  wealth  and 
resources.  As  I  have  never  heard  this  opinion  vindicated,  I 
have  a  right  to  treat  it  as  a  sophism,  and  as  sophistry  is  not 
the  object  of  my  researches,  I  hope  the  reader  with  myself, 
will  be  content  in  dismissing  that  point  as  unnecessary  of  in- 
vestigation, and  admit  the  silence  as  a  consent.  It  then  clearly 
follows  that  the  point  of  honor  is  the  focus  where  the  radiant 
American  banners  are  to  be  collected  and  unfurled,  that  the 
days  of  chivalry  are  to  be  revived,  or  the  more  ancient  and 
voracious  system  of  a  military  republic,  is  after  a  lapse  of 
seventeen  centuries,  about  to  burst  forth  in  the  new  western 
world — let  it  be  so — every  age  is  stamped  with  its  follies, 
and  the  present  one  can  never  be  stigmatized  as  having  en- 
tertained too  high  notions  of  honor.  Reparation  is  to  be 
•made  for  the  insult-*-Granted.  But  is  not  the  cause  to  be 
investigated,  nay,  is  it  not  at  present  before  the  proper  tri- 
bunals, and  have  we  had  a  statement  from  both  parties,  upon 
which  we  can  form  an  impartial  judgment  ?  surely  we  have 
not  already  lost  the  valuable  acquisition  of  common  sense, 
or  like  the  Republicans  of  France  drank  the  waters  of  Lethe. 
Is  judgment  to  be  prevented  from  exercising  her  decision, 
and  is  reparation  to  an  injury  to  be  denied  because  an  insult 
has  been  felt.  Reparation  is  to  be  made  for  the  insult- 
Granted.  But  has  not  the  narrative  of  the  insult  been  exag- 
gerated, has  it  not  been  denied  thut  insult  was  intended,  and 
have  not  the  aggressors  expressed  their  contrition  for  a  con- 
duct they  deemed  it  a  duty  to  pursue  ;  if  in  die  execution 
of  orders,  aggressions  arise,  let  them  be  attributed  to  the 
proper  motive,  and  let  the  causes  be  investigated.  Had  it 
been  meant  as  an  insult  or  indignity  to  the  American  flag, 
it  would  have  been  avowed  ;  on  the  contrary  it  appears  to 
have  proceeded  from  a  misconception  of  the  rights  of  nations, 
from  mysterious  points  which  may  probably  perplex  the 
cabinets  of  the  two  countries,  and  which  involve  the  chief 
purport  of  these  lines. 

.  Reparation  is  to  be  made  for  the  insult — Granted.  But  is 
not  the  term  one  of  those  misnomers  that  are  ever  charac- 
terizing public  prints;  if  we  analyze  the  word  we  shall  not  at 
all  find  it  applicable  to  the  transaction,  since  the  transaction 
must  cause  the  base  on  which  the  epithet  is  predicated,  if 
so,  was  there  any  insult  in  first  demanding  the  men  I  No* 


that  is  allotted,  consequently  the  right  of  demand  was  no  in- 
sult, it  could  be  no  injury  and  was  a  right.  Was  there  any 
insult  in  persevering  to  demand  the  men  ?  No,  it  must  be 
allowed  if  they  had  a  right  to  demand,  they  had  a  right  to 
persevere  till  the  point  was  mutually  adjusted.  Was  there 
any  insult  in  sending  on  board  a  Lieutenant  with  a  letter  to 
require  search  ?  (I  use  the  term  ;of  the  Admiral's  gene- 
ral orders  as  unfortunately  at  present  I  know  not  whether 
Captain  Humphries  acted  on  any  other,  or  whether  he  had 
specific  orders) — No,  that  requisition  was  refused,  and  at 
present  we  are  ignorant  whether  Captain  Humphries  ex- 
ceeded his  orders  in  resorting  to  force  or  not,  if  his  orders 
•were  to  proceed  to  force,  it  was  an  act  of  hostility  and  not  an 
insult.  Whether  Admiral  Berkeley  or  Captain  Humphries 
have  been  to  blame  we  at  present  know  not,  as  it  must  de- 
pend on  the  instructions  the  Captain  received,  and  whether 
the  Admiral's  orders  are  sxich  as  ought  not  to  have  issued, 
is  a  point  to  be  adjusted  by  the  two  Governments,  and  on 
•which  the  Admiral  may  have  been  mistaken,  and  the  act  of 
hostility  disavowed  by  the  British  cabinet.  It  has  not  been 
denied  but  there  was  a  cause,  and  scrutiny  only  will  bear  us 
out  in  unfolding  the  truth  ;  we  must  wait  the  event  of  an  en- 
tire disclosure  of  the  facts  on  both  sides.  Since  I  presume 
It  will  be  allowed  there  was  a  cause,  it  will  be  equally  per- 
mitted that  separate  opinions  might  be  entertained  on  its 
merits ;  that  Admiral  Berkeley  might  form  an  opinion  con- 
trary to  the  American,  and  in  that  he  may  or  may  not  be 
mistaken,  and  that  the  opinion  on  which  he  acted  arose  sole- 
ly from  a  conviction  of  his  duty,  is  plain,  and  in  pursuing 
that  opinion  his  instructions  proceeded  from  a  sense  of  his 
duty,  and  not  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  an  insult.  It  is  clear 
he  did  not  consider  the  requisition  to  search,  as  an  insult, 
since  he  reciprocally  subjected  the  vessels  on  his  station  to 
the  same  act,  if  required  ;  if  an  act  of  reciprocity  was  to  be 
construed  an  insult,  he  it  appears,  must  have  ignorantly  er- 
red, and  have  acted  under  a  misconception,  and  was  answer- 
able to  his  own  Government  also  for  permitting  an  indignity. 
Every  one  will  allow  thutif  a  British  commander  was  to  per- 
mit an  insult  he  would  be  severely  punished,  then  is  it  prob- 
able that  the  Admiral  would  render  himself  liable  by  per- 
mitting an  insult,  which  he  certainly  is,  if  it  is  an  insult,  to 
allow  a  reciprocal  search  for  mutineers  or  deserters.  If  it  is 
an  insult,  America  will  have  ample  atonement  in  the  chas- 
tisement the  Admiral  will  suffer  for  promulgating  doctrines 
derogatory  to  British  dignity. 


Without  anticipating  the  intentions  of  either  Government 
by  opinion,  or  committing  myself  by  a  resolution,  I  shall 
patiently  wait  the  decision  of  an  event,  the  full  particulars  of 
which,  are  as  yet  secret,  and  not  draw  my  conclusions  till  the 
whole  facts  have  been  submitted  to  investigation.  But  I 
may  hazard  an  opinion  that  if  the  point  of  honor  is  the  axis 
solely  on  which  peace  or  war  turns,  and  that  if  the  insult  is 
the  only  cause  of  complaint,  that  we  shall  then  be  blest 
with  a  continuance  of  peace,  as  I  presume  America  was  not 
desirious  of  committing  an  injury,  or  Great-Britain  an  insult, 
but  that  it  was  an  action  arising  from  the  unsettled  state  of 
things,  and  by  a  synchronism,  transpired  before  the  matter 
was  finally  adjusted.  If  Great-Britain  has  committed  both 
an  injury  and  insult,  her  blame  is  double,  and  it  is  her  duty 
accordingly  to  yield  double  reparation  ;  but  if  their  lurks 
behind  these  proceedings  other  sentiments  and  determina- 
tions, then  we  are  not  to  attribute  the  failure  of  a  continu- 
ance of  peace,  to  the  avowed  object  that  reparation  is  to  be 
made  for  the  insult.  The  re-echoed  complaints  of  insulted 
honor  will  vanish  on  the  appearance  of  more  substantial,  but 
degraded  interest,  and  with  surprise  shall  we  behold  honor 
humbled  to  the  rank  of  master  of  ceremonies,  introducing; 
a  diversified  group.  The  mysteries  of  port  folios,  like  the 
mysteries  of  Plato,  are  impervious  to  the  public  eye  ;  the 
statesman  and  philosopher  alike  enjoy  the  sequestered  ar- 
canum ;  the  pages  of  their  sacred  book,  are  dealt  out  with  a 
spare  hand,  and  cautiously  disclosed,  least  the  undertakings 
of  inferior  geniuses  should  be  overwhelmed  and  lost  forever. 
We  are  left  to  form  our  opinions  solely  from  what  is  present- 
ed us,  and  care  is  taken  not  to  present  more  than  will  satisfy 
our  puny  minds  and  afford  a  prattling  topic  of  conversation  ; 
our  conclusions  are  drawn,  and  we  stand  confessed — it  must  be 
true,  it  proceeds  from  supreme  authority,  it  is  the  finis  sequi 
juris.  Since  then  it  is  allowed  to  seek  amusement  in  that 
which  has  transpired,  I  may  be  indulged  in  discanting  on  the 
Pamphlet,  as  report  insinuates,  Clio  has  claimed  it  as  com- 
ing within  her  Province.  The  penetrating  goddess  may  see 
and  risk  sources  of  calamities  arising  to  mankind  from  its 
tenets,  and  she  may  let  fall  a  tear  of  compassion  on  the  page 
as  she  indites  its  effects.  Under  the  specious  pretext  of 
justice,  every  ancient  claim  is  to  submit  to  its  pretensions ; 
it  is  ushered  into  the  world  to  support  one  cause,  while  its 
voracious  system  devours  another  ;  while  it  holds  out  pro- 
tection, it  encourages  fraud,  and  while  it  attempts  (o  allay 
one  evil,  it  preposterously  promotes  another.  A  novel  doc- 
trine, worthy  modern  times. 

B 


On  adverting  to  the  Pamphlet,  we  find  it  bursts  upon  us 
with  a  principle,  thut  America  considers  a  neutral  flag  on 
the  high  seas,  as  a  safeguard  to  those  sailing  under  it.— 
Great-Britain  on  the  contrary,  asserts  a  right  to  search  for 
and  seize  her  own  subjects.  This  right  is  denied  and  on  the 
best  grounds,  says  the  Author.  We  are  therefore  here  to 
take  our  stand  and  examine  impartially  which  of  these  rights 
are  just,  and  the  effects  that  result  from  the  adoption  of  ei- 
ther principle.  I  am  ready  to  allow  some  evils  may  arise 
from  the  difficulty  of  distinguishing  American  from  British 
subjects,  and  under  that  cover  many  may  be  carried  off,  but 
I  deny  that  the  abuses  flowing  from  it,  would  justify  Amer- 
ica in  expecting  a  discontinuance  of  its  exercise.  I  do  not 
understand  the  logic  of  abolishing  a  right  because  an  evil 
arises  from  it,  for  if  that  were  the  case,  America  might  set 
the  example  and  abolish  commerce  because  it  covers  smug- 
gling ;  this  the  Author  dreads  as  it  would  at  once  remedy 
the  evil  and  deprive  him  of  farther  argument.  Here  fol- 
lows another  sophism,  and  least  I  should  be  accused  of  mis- 
tating,  I  have  resolved  to  quote  the  whole  sentence. 

"  Although  Great-Britain  has  not  yet  adopted,  in  the  same 
l(  latitude  with  most  other  nations,  the  immunities  of  a  neu- 
fc  tral  flag,  she  will  not  deny  the  general  freedom  of  the 
"  high  seas,  and  of  neutral  vessels  navigating  them,  with 
*'  such  exceptions  only  as  are  annexed  to  it  by  the  law  of  na- 
*'  tions.  She  must  produce  then  such  an  exception  in  the 
"  law  of  nations,  in  favor  of  the  right  she  contends  for.  But 
*'  in  what  written  and  received  authority  will  she  find  it  ?  in 
*'  what  usage  except  her  own,  will  it  be  found  ?  She  will  find 
u  in  both,  that  a  neutral  vessel  does  not  protect  certain  ob- 
*'  jects  denominated  contraband  of  war,  including  enemies 
*(  serving  in  the  war,  nor  articles  going  into  a  blockaded 
u  port,  nor  as  she  has  maintained,  and  as  we  have  not  con- 
*'  tested,  enemies'  property  of  any  kind.  But  no  where  will 
t{  she  find  an  exception  to  this  freedom  of  the  seas,  and  of 
"  neutral  flags,  which  justifies  the  taking  away  of  any  per- 
"  son,  not  an  enemy  in  military  service,  found  on  board  a  neu- 
"  tral  vessel." 

In  the  first  part  of  the  sentence  the  illiberality  of  Great- 
Britain  is  held  up  to  view,  compared  with  other  countries, 
and  this  too  by  an  American.  Ingratitude's  a  weed  in  every 
soil '.  But  the  conclusion  is,  that  she  conforms  to  the  law  of 
nations  on  the  high  seas.  She  is  next  put  to  her  trumps  for 
an  exception  in  the  bw  of  nations  of  the  right  she  contends 
for  j  he  then  shews  that  a  neutral  does  not  protect  certain- 


11 

objects  contraband  of  war,  including  enemies  serving. in  the 
•war.  But  no  where  will  she  find  an  exception  to  this  free- 
dom of  the  seas  and  of  neutral  flags,  which  justifies  the  tak- 
ing away  of  any  person  not  in  military  service  found  on  board 
a  ntutral  vessel.  The  plain  English  of  this  is,  that  a  neu- 
tral does  not  protect  enemies  serving  in  the  war.  Had  the 
Author  began  and  ended  there  we  might  have  comprehended 
him  clearly,  and  I  should  have  revered  his  opinion,  but  in  the 
same  breath  almost,  he  adds  the  word  military.  Long  habit- 
uated to  live  under  a  civil  government,  I  was  startled  at  the 
term,  and  conjectured  something  more  was  meant.  Surely 
the  marine  of  Great-Britain  is  not  to  be  sacrificed  by  Amer- 
ica, us  a  peace-offering  to  the  military  of  France,  and  a  dis- 
tinction in  the  laws  of  war  to  be  made  between  a  mariner 
and  a  soldier.  Is  the  physical  marine  force  of  Great-Briton 
to  be  less  respected  than  the  military  of  France  ?  Surely 
not.  Would  France  permit  a  neutral  in  time  of  war,  to  re- 
cruit its  armies  with  multitudes  of  her  deserters  ?  No,  she 
would  insist  on  their  being  delivered  up,  or  would  justly  de- 
clare war  against  them.  The  naval  power  of  Great-Britain 
is  as  dear  to  her  as  the  military  power  of  France  ;  her  mar- 
iners are  as  much  her  forces  and  protection  as  the  military 
of  Bonaparte  ;  every  soldier  in  France  is  liable  to  be  called  on 
as  the  government  may  want  his  aid,  and  sois  every  sailor  in 
Great-Britain.  If  France  wants  men,  her  conscriptions  sat- 
isfy her  demands,  they  are  compelled  to  pursue  a  life  con* 
trary  to  their  interests  and  inclinations,  and  which  in  general, 
deterioates  their  future  prospects.  If  Great-Britain  wants 
sailors,  she  only  removes  men  from  serving  a  merchant  to 
serving  his  country,  his  interest  and  inclinations  were  a  sea- 
faring life,  and  in  general,  their  future  prospects  are  not  de- 
teriorated, but  amended.  I  refer  the  reader  to  British  boun- 
ty and  endowments.  As  to  the  discipline  and  curtailment  of 
improprieties,  it  is  only  the  same  as  the  soldiers,  and  what 
law  is  to  a  profligate.  A  British  sailor  is  not  benefited,  as  I 
know  of,  by  entering  into  the  service  of  America ;  disci- 
pline is  there  observed.  But  in  time  of  war  he  avoids  en- 
gagements •;  he  that  can  degrade  his  mind  to  use  such  wo- 
manlike language,  little  knows  the  hearts  of  British  seamen, 
nor  would  America  feel  very  secure  with  such  protection  : 
Is  it  not  also  worthy  consideration  ?  whether  the  language 
that  is  used  in  misrepresenting  the  naval  service,  may  not 
first  operate  as  a  check  to  the  juvenile  navy  of  America.-— 
Why  is  the  military  solely  to  be  considered,  what  gives  it  an 
exclusive  priority,  it  is  only  the  natural  defence  of  one 


12 

country,  while  the  navy  is  that  of  another ;  how  are  they  first 
organized,  not  by  the  laws  of  nations,  but  of  individual  states  ; 
their  regulations  are  municipal,  and  their  numbers  relative  ; 
they  increase  and  diminish  according  to  their  wants  and  ef- 
forts. France  justifies  her  conscriptions  by  her  efforts,  and 
her  inhabitants  are  curtailed  in  privileges  and  liberty  by  new 
municipal  decrees,  whilst  Great-Britain  on  the  other  hand 
does  not  extend  her  means,  for  the  right  of  impressing  con- 
stitutes a  part  of  the  common  law  of  England.  The  milita- 
ry and  naval  force  of  America  are  also  regulated  by  internal 
laws,  and  in  case  of  war,  would  not  America  consider  her 
seamen  as  much  a  part  of  her  physical  force,  as  her  soldiers. 
I  hope  enough  has  been  advanced  clearly  and  satisfactorily 
to  prove,  that  no  destinction  can  be  made  between  the  mili- 
tary and  navy,  as  constituting  a  part  of  the  physical  force  of 
belligerents,  and  consequently  rendering  them  equally  lia- 
ble to  be  taken  out  of  a  neutral  vessel. 

It  naturally  occurs  for  us  to  inquire  by  what  right  even  a 
military  or  naval  character  is  taken  out  of  a  neutral,  and  out 
of  this  arises  an  important  point,  viz  :  a  right  of  belligerents 
founded  on  the  law  of  nations ;  for  belligerents,  as  well  as 
neutrals,  have  rights  ;  they  have  a  right,  says  Vattel,  of  doing 
against  the  enemy  whatever  is  necessary  for  weakening  him, 
for  disabling  him  from  making  any  further  resistance  in  sup- 
port of  his  injustice  ;  and  the  most  effectual,  the  most  prop- 
er methods  may  be  chosen,  provided  they  have  nothing  odi- 
ous, be  not  unlawful  in  themselves,  or  exploded  by  the  law 
of  nature.  Nay,  he  goes  as  far  as  to  declare  all  enemies 
may  be  secured,  though  the  European  nations  at  present,  sel- 
dom make  use  of  the  expedient  of  taking  such  as  are  in  a 
peaceful  and  civil  capacity  ;  but  France,  at  the  commence- 
ment of  this  war,  detained  as  prisoners,  all  the  British  sub- 
jects of  every  description  that  were  in  her  territories,  and 
many  whose  sojourning  there,  was  for  literature,  pleas- 
ure or  curiosity.  It  being  evident  a  belligerent  may  seize 
his  enemies  on  board  a  neutral,  to  a  plain  mind  it  must  be 
a  paradox,  he  cannot  take  that  which  is  his  own,  or  appeal  to 
any  other  tribunal  with  a  prospect  of  success,  but  to  that  of 
arms  ;  this  is  really  very  kind  in  the  neutral,  tenaciously  ta- 
king such  good  care  of  what  belongs  immediately  to  the 
claimant,  at  the  same  time  allowing  him  to  take  away  his  en- 
emies ;  but  how  does  it  turn  out  when  this  kind  neutral  meets 
the  other  belligerent,  why  he  very  kindly  gives  him  up  his 
adversary's  subjects,  so  that  afterwards,  should  the  first  bel- 
ligerent meet  his  old  friend  again,  the  neutral,  a  curious 


13 

conversation  would  pass.    Well,  how  are  all  my  fellow-citi- 
zens on  board  your  ship,  oh  !     I  gave  them  up  to  your  ad- 
versary,   he  is  your  enemy  and  had  a  right  to  them,    you 
know  you  took  his  out  of  my  ship,  so  you  are  equal,  and  I 
am  neutral — exchange  is  no  robbery,  so  I  wish  you  a  pleas- 
ant voyage.     Before  we  proceed  farther,   let  us  in  another 
point  of  view  reflect  upon  the  subject,  and  we  certainly  shall 
discover  an  insuperable  objection,  and  which  ought  first  to 
be  fully  and  favorably  ascertained  before  neutral  protection 
was  extended  to  the  latitude  required.     We  have  seen  that 
belligerents  have  a  right   to  take  out  their  enemies  from 
neutral  ships,  why  ?  Because  they  are  enemies,  if  so,  all  neu- 
tral ships  bound  to  the  ports  of  belligerents  would  have  such 
men  taken  from  them  as  were  enemies,  whether  drove  in 
by  distress,  or  bound  there ;  if  the  neutral  flag  could  not  pro- 
tect them  at  sea,  it  cannot  when  in  the  ports  of  a  belligerent. 
Blackstone  in  his  commentaries  observes,    no  subject  of  a 
nation  at  war  with  Great-Britain,  can,  by  the  law  of  nations, 
come  into  the  realm,    nor  can  travel  himself  upon  the  high 
seas,  or  send  his  goods  and  merchandize  from  one  place  to 
another  without  danger  of  being  seized,  unless  he  has  letters 
of  safe  conduct.     If  this  was  not  the  law  of  nations,  Great- 
Britain  would  not  alter  her  statutes,  or  France  her  decrees,  to 
benefit  a  neutral.     But  even  should  America  be  powerful 
enough  to  enforce  this  principle  as  a  law,  in  the  present  sit- 
uation of  Europe,  how  would  it  operate ;  Great-Britain  would 
soon  be  deprived  of  her  physical  force,  and  we  should  soon 
see  nothing  but  neutral  flags  filled  with  her  citizens.     Would 
the  evil  here  stop,  would  it  not  be  soon  turned  to  the  pur- 
pose of  supplying  her  enemies  with  colonial,"  if  not  every  oth- 
er produce  ?   To  view  the  effects  of  a  neutral  flag  protecting 
all  men  under  its  colours,  is  no  more  than  seeing  the  neutral 
prosper  at  the  sole  expense,  if  not  existence,  of  one  of  the 
belligerents,  without  affecting  or  injuring  the  policy  of  the 
other  in  the  smallest  degree.     Is  that  compatible  with  neu- 
trality ?  Is  gun-powder,  saddles,  &c.  to  be  considered  con- 
traband ?  Yet  to  be  deemed  lawful  to  deprive  a  belligerent  of 
his  physical  force.     Surely  such  incongruity  can  never  be 
seriously  intended,  nor  can  America  wish  to  see  the  modern, 
cruel  and  tyrannizing  expressions  of  Delenda  est  Carthago 
verified.     Perish  Britain,  perish  America  ;  the  costly  dreams 
of  the  latter  will  vanish  with  the  substance  of  the  former. — 
But  to  proceed  to  conclusions,  and  to  the  farther  justification 
of  belligerents  seizing  their  subjects  on  board  neutrals,  that 
point  ought  to  be  argued  more  fully,  and  the  right  of  belli- 


u 

gerents  established.     The  pamphlet  next  proceeds  to  state, 
in  no  instance  do  British  treaties,  as  well  as  otiiers,  affirm  or 
imply  a  right  in  any  sovereign  to  enforce  his  claims  to  the  al- 
legiance of  his  subjects  on  board  neutral -vessels  on  the  high  seas. 
This  naturally  involves  two  questions,    first,    the  right  of 
allegiance  ;  secondly,  the  right  of  neutrals.     I  shall  clearly 
shew  from  these,  the  cause  why  the  principle  has  never  form- 
ed a  part  of  treaties,  as  in  fact  it  has  been  so  pkdn  a  truism 
as  even  to  have  been  admitted  by  the  most  sceptic  statesmen. 
As  a  reasoner  I  might  be  justified  in  asking  in  what  Author, 
except  in  the  Pamphlet,  will  it  be  found,  that  neutrals  have 
<z  right,  to  flu  military  or  naval  force  of  a  belligerent,  and  it 
would  have  been  first  incumbent  on  him  to  have  proved  hi» 
right  by  the  law  of  nations,  before  he  asserted  it ;  he  would 
then  have  put  me  to  the  necessity  of  examining  his  proofs 
and  controverting  them.     My  bi.sis  would  then  have  been  at 
least  equal  to  his,  and  it  was  as  much  his  business  to  prove 
the   rights   of  neutrals  to  the  military  and  naval  citizens  of 
belligerents,  as  it  is  mine  to  prove  they  have  a  right  to  take 
them  out  of  a  neutral.     But  to  examine  the  first  question, 
the  right  of  allegiance.     This  duty  is  broadly  laid  down  by 
the  writers  on  tire  laws  of  nations,  this  ligamen  protects  the 
amor  patrise  ;  America  respects  it  as  the  Gordian  knot  that 
ties  the  bonds  of  social  community.     "  Every  member  of  a 
society,  says  Vattci,  is  obligi  d  to  serve  and  defend  the  state 
as  fi.r  as  he  is  capable.     Society  otherwise  cannot  be  m.  in- 
tc.inecl ;  and  this  concurrence  for  the  common  defence,  is  one 
of  the   principal  intentions  of    every   political   association. 
Every  man  capable  of  carrying  aims,  should  take  them  up 
at  the  first  order  of  him  who  has  the  power  of  making  war." 
And  where  he  speaks  of  a  person  quitting  his  country,  he 
observes,  "  As  to  those  who  have  the  cowardice  to  abandon 
it  in  a  time  of  danger,  seeking  to  secure  themselves,  instead 
of  defending  it,  they  manifestly  violate  the  part  of  society, 
by  which  they  engaged  to  defend  themselves  in  an  united 
body,  and  in  concert :    these  are  infamous  deserters,  which 
the  state  has  a  right  to  punish  severely."     Also,  when  they 
travel  for  their  own  affairs,  it  is  provided  that  they  be  always 
ready  to  return  as  soon  as  the  public  interest  recalls  them. 
Thus,  by  the  law  of  nations,  we  find  subjects  are  deemed  in- 
famous, if  they  leave  their  country  with  a  view  of  seeming 
themselves  from  danger,  and  at  that  period,  it  is  an  unlawful 
act,  but  this  is  varied  in  different  countries,  according  to  the 
lan-s  of  the  state,  as  at  Neufch;itel  and  Valengen.  they  are 
at  liberty,  at  all  times,  to  depart  with  their  goods  and  chattels ; 


15 

but  in  England  the  allegiance  which  binds  the  subject  to  the 
King,  for  the  protection  the  King  gives  the  subject,  is  car- 
ried as  far  as  that  of  any  country,  and  founded  on  a  basis  of 
wisdom  that  has  dispensed  its  happiness  to  America,  contra 
Omnes  homines  fideii  tatem  fecit.  It  is,  say  the  authorities, 
a  principle  of  universal  law,  that  the  natural  born  subject  of 
one  Prince  cannot  by  any  act  of  his  own,  no,  not  by  swear- 
ing allegiance  to  another,  put  off'  or  discharge  his  natural' 
allegiance  to  the  former  ;  for  his  natural  allegiance  was  in- 
trinsic and  primitive,  and  antecedent  to  the  other,  and  cun- 
not  be  divested  without  the  concurrent  act  of  that  Prince  to 
whom  it  was  first  due,  for  which  a  Prince  is  always  untler  a 
constant  tie  to  protect  his  natural  born  subjects  at  all  times 
and  in  all  countries,  for  this  reason  their  allegiance  due  to 
him  is  equally  universal  and  permanent.  The  statute  of 
George  the  Second,  gives  the  King  a  right  whenever  he 
sees  proper,  of  confining  his  subjects  to  stay  within  the 
realm,  or  of  recalling  them  when  beyond  the  seas.  Thus 
have  I  proved  the  right  of  allegiance  by  the  law  of  nations 
and  the  law  of  states,  they  are  unique  -md  predicated  on  the 
same  good  sense  ;  the  latter  is  as  necessary  to  regard  as  the 
former,  for  no  where  in  the  law  of  nations  is  it  to  be  found, 
that  a  neutral  has  a  right  to  the  military  or  naval  physical 
force  of  a  belligerent,  if  ever  then  it  is  asserted,  it  must  be 
done  by  the  law  of  a  state  and  not  by  the  law  of  nations,  and 
if  this  takes  place,  it  will  be  law  in  open  violation  of  the  law 
of  nations. 

Now,  to  the  right  of  neutrals,  shall  I  deliver  the  opinion 
of  Azuni,  and  say  neutrality  is  a  continuance  of  the  same 
state  a  country  was  in  before  war  broke  out  between  two  or 
other  parties,  with  the  addition  of  a  scrupulous  impartiality  ; 
no,  that  would  be  a  death  blow  to  the  French  colonial  trade 
carried  on  by  America,  and  embraces  in  it  a  quibble  that  as 
a  country  permits  in  peace  her  subjects  to  enter  into  foreign 
service,  the  neutral  would  be  still  entitled  to  it  in  war,  the 
answer  is  plain,  and  from  what  we  have  perused,  we  clearly 
discern  that  can  be  only  a  matter  of  courtesy.  We  will  next 
see  what  Vattel  says  on  this  subject,  and  I  hope  fully  t(? 
prove  the  exception  so  earnestly  required  which  justifies 
taking  away  a  person,  not  an  enemy  in  military  service,  fron* 
on  board  a  neutral.  It  is  stated  by  Vattel  to  be  the  doty  ot 
a  neutral,  that  he  shall  not  favor  the  arms  of  one  belligerent 
to  the  detriment  of  another,  it  is  to  shew  an  exact  impar- 
tiality between  the  parties  at  war,  for  should  he  favor  one 
to  the  detriment  of  the  other,  he  cannot  complain  of  being 


16 

treated  by  him  as  an  adherent  and  confederate  of  his  enemy  j 
his  neutrality  would  be  a  fraudulent  neutrality,  but  of  which 
no  nation  would  be  the  dupe.  It  is  sometimes  connived  at, 
for  want  of  ability  to  resent  it,  and  is  often  permitted  to  avoid 
bringing  additional  forces  on  one's  self.  Again — A  neutral 
nation  continues  with  the  two  parties  at  war,  in  the  several 
relations  nature  has  placed  between  nations.  By  this  it  is 
evident,  a  neutral  transgresses  the  bounds  of  neutrality,  if  he 
deprives  a  belligerent  of  his  physical  force  ;  can  there  be  a 
more  glaring  detriment,  or  can  he  take  more  injurious  meas- 
ures saving  open  hostilities  ;  likewise  the  neutral  continues 
between  the  contending  parties  in  the  several  relations  na- 
ture has  placed  him,  it  is  clear  from  this,  he  can  have  no 
right  to  the  subjects  of  either  belligerent,  since  nature  has 
confined  his  right  to  his  own  territories  and  subjects,  and 
not  given  him  any  right  over  those  of  another,  unless  they 
come  into  his  dominions.  Before  I  close  this  examination, 
I  will  trespass  on  the  reader's  patience  in  again  refering  to 
Vattel,  on  his  observation  of  justice  between  nations.  Jus- 
tice, he  says,  is  the  basis  of  all  society,  the  sure  bond  of  all 
commerce.  All  nations  are  then  strictly  obliged  to  cultivate 
justice  with  respect  to  each  other,  to  observe  it  scrupulously, 
and  carefully  to  abstain  from  every  thing  that  may  violate  it. 
Every  one  ought  to  render  to  others  what  belongs  to  them, 
to  respect  their  rights, and  to  leave  them  in  the  peaceable  en- 
joyment of  them.  From  this  indispensible  obligation 
which  nature  imposes  on  nations,  as  well  as  on  all  those  who 
are  bound  to  practise  it  towards  each  other,  results  the  right 
of  every  state  not  to  suffer  any  of  its  privileges  to  be  taken 
away,  or  any  thing  which  lawfully  belongs  to  it ;  for  in  op- 
posing this,  it  acts  in  conformity  to  all  its  duties,  and  there- 
in consists  the  right.  This  right  is  perfect,  that  is  accom- 
panied with  the  right  of  using  force  to  make  it  observed. — 
In  vain  would  nature  give  us  a  right  not  to  suffer  injustice  ; 
in  vain  would  it  oblige  others  to  be  just  with  respect  to  us, 
if  we  could  not  lawfully  make  use  of  force,  when  they  re- 
fused to  discharge  this  duty.  The  just  would  be  at  the  mer- 
cy of  fraud  and  injustice,  and  all  their  rights  would  soon  be- 
come useless.  From  whence  arises,  as  from  so  many  branch- 
es, first,  the  right  of  a  just  defence,  which  belongs  to  every 
nation  ;  or  the  right  of  making  use  of  force  against  whoever 
attacks  it  and  its  privileges.  Secondly,  the  right  to  obtain 
justice  by  force  if  we  cannot  obtain  it  otherwise,  or  to  pur- 
sue our  right  by  force  of  arms.  Known  injustice  is  doubt- 
less a  species  of  injury  ;  we  have  then  a  right  to  punish.it- 
The  right  of  not  suffering  injustice,  is  a  branch  of  the  right 


17 

of  security.  Thus,  from  the  laws  of  nations,  k  is  clear  that 
belligerents  have  a  right  to  their  own  subjects,  •uore  espe- 
cially if  they  constitute  a  put  of  their  physical  force,  and 
from  the  same  law  on  the  justice  of  nations,  that  they  have 
a  right  even  to  use  force  to  obtain  that  which  lawfully  belongs 
to  them.  It  is  obvious  wAy  treaties  on  this  point  have  beert 
silent,  for  this  right  has  never  till  now  been  demanded.  Na- 
tions have  ever  been  in  the  practice  of  regarding  their  sub- 
jects as  under  their  sole  authority,  though  in  times  of  peace 
they  sometimes  by  courtesy,  allow  them  to  place  themselves 
under  the  authority  of  other  nations,  yet  it  is  with  the  pro- 
viso that  they  must  return  when  called  upon.  From  the  at- 
tention paid  to  this  subject  it  may  safely  be  announced  that 
the  laws  of  nations  both  affirm  and  justify  a  right  in  the 
sovereign  to  enforce  his  claims  to  the  allegiance  of  his  sub- 
jects on  board  neutral  vessels  on  the  high  seas,  and  that  rea- 
sons, beyond  doubt,  are  as  good  to  be  alledged  at  one  time 
as  another,  no  matter  whether  war  or  not,  only  in  times  of 
peace  a  greater  indulgence  is  granted  by  the  courtesy  of 
governments.  I  do  not  contend  that  belligerents  have  a 
right  to  search  the  ships  belonging  to  a  neutral  government, 
because  the  honor  and  impartiality  of  the  neutral  forbids  his 
having  in  his  ships  the  mariners  of  either  belligerent,  and! 
his  flag  is  indicative  of  that  high  sense  of  right,  that  it  is  not 
to  be  presumed  he  would  violate  it,  but  if  there  is  certdn, 
or  corroborative  evidence  that  he  has  been  fraudulently  im- 
posed upon  by  a  resemblance  of  the  subjects  of  nations,  I 
see  no  indignity  in  surrendering  such  as  he  had  no  right  to. 
The  ship  being  a  ship  of  war,  is  no  good  reason  for  refusing; 
an  act  of  justice  and  impartiality,  on  the  contrary,  a  high 
sense  of  honor  cannot  exist  without  a  high  sense  of  right  ; 
mutual  acts  of  urbanity  and  friendship  increase  the  esteem 
nations  in  time  of  peace  ought  to  cultivate  and  promote 
towards  each  other.  Much  is  said,  and  much  we  know  uii- 
ses  from  the  frauds  of  sailors  committed  on  different. coun- 
tries, the  effects  of  which  have  embittered  the  negotiations 
held  on  the  topic  of  citizens  ;  for  u  few  guineas  a  sailor  too 
frequently  will  enlist  even  when  at  the  same  time  he  is  de- 
determined  to  make  his  escape  and  claim  the  protection 
of  another  country.  To  eradicate  this  evil,  I  would  pro- 
pose that  whenever  a  sailor  entered  into  any  service  and 
received  the  bounty,  and  afterwards  claimed  the  protec- 
tion of  his  country  as  a  citizen,  that  the  bounty  money- 
should  be  repayed  to  the  country,  or  their  agent,  or  cap- 
tain that  enlisted  him,  and  he  should  be  compelled  to  serve 

C 


18 

his  own  country  till  he  had  worked  out  the  money  that  was 
paid  for  his  release.  This  would  strike  at  the  root  of  the 
evil,  and  would  prevent  sailors  resorting  to  the  fraudulent 
means  they  now  so  frequently  do,  as  by  that  means  they 
would  be  compelled  to  serve  their  time  on  board  the  ships 
of  war  of  one  or  the  other  nation.  This  would  operate  fa- 
vorably to  the  neutral,  as  it  is  not  likely  the  sailors  would 
prefer  a  foreign  service  where,  if  he  was  wounded,  he  would 
not  be  entitled  to  the  same  provision  as  a  subject  of  that 
country.  This  plan  would  also  do  away  the  little  bickerings 
between  nations  which  are  seized  upon  by  the  malicious,  tur- 
bulent or  interested  individuals  of  a  society. 

The  flagrant  inconsistencies  alledged  against  Great-Bri- 
tain, by  the  Pamphlet,  are  the  next  points  worthy  examina- 
tion, as  the  preceding  ones  that  are  passed  unnoticed,  are 
dependant  on  the  principles  we  have  canvassed,  or  are,  ab- 
stractedly, of  so  little  importance,  when  divested  of  their 
great  objects,  that  no  evil  is  likely  to  arise  from  them,  and 
are  such  as  a  friendly  conference  between  negotiators,  would 
speedily  remove.  The  alledged  complaint  that  England, 
while  struggling  for  her  liberty,  if  not  existence,  on  the 
sacred  principles  of  justice,  should  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  the 
laws  of  nations,  and  refuse  a  neutral  what  herself  is  con- 
tending for,  requires  attention.  "  She  not  only  seizes  her 
own  subjects  voluntarily  serving  in  American  vessels,  but 
hus  refused  to  discharge  Americans,  alledging  they  had  vol- 
untarily engaged  in  it."  I  wish  the  Pamphlet  had  stated 
that  this  was  the  language  of  the  British  cabinet,  though  I 
do  not  hesitate  in  believing  his  assertion,  it  would  yet  have 
been  more  satisfactory  to  have  known  that  the  source  of  his- 
complaints  were  from  the  fountain  head  ;  perhaps  he  might 
there  have  learnt  a  lesson  from  some  venerable  statesman, 
a  prototype  of  which  has  been  just  rehearsed  by  the  Em- 
peror of  Austria.  He  might  have  learnt  to  consider  that 
under  the  existing  circumstances,  it  was  the  duty  of  every 
American  to  remain  a  quiet  spectator  of  the  wars  in  Eu- 
rope ;  that  they  ought  not  to  enlist  in  the  service  of  the  bel- 
ligerents or  encourage  others,  as  it  is  incompatible  with 
the  principles  of  neutrality,  and  an  injury  to  the  United 
States,  by  diminishing  their  subjects  ;  and  that  such  as  were 
found  transgressing,  should  suffer  the  penalties  of  the  law. 
He  would  have  known  that  there  is  no  law  that  prohibits  a 
belligerent  from  enlisting  any  that  offer  their  services.  It 
is  the  duty  of  the  neutral  to  regulate  its  citizens,  but  should 
that  neutral  be  engaged  in  war,  then  he  would  be  justly  en-- 


19 

titled  to  the  service  of  his  citizens,  and  would  have  aright  to 
t'lem  ;  in  that  case,  should  they  be  refused,  it  would  be  a  mat. 
tec  of  serious  complaint,  and  he  might  resort  to  force  for 
redress.  France  has  a  more  serious  and  solid  ground  of 
complaint  if  America  permits  her  subjects  to  enter  into  the 
service  of  Gre<tt-Britain  ;  if  America  does  not  countenance 
the  act,  the  conclusion  is  that  the  individual  enters  at  his  own 
risk,  and  must  abide  the  consequences.  But  the  ground  of 
inconsistencies  is  carried  one  step  farther.  "  Whilst  she 
(England)  impresses  her  own  subjects  from  the  American 
service,  although  they  may  have  been  settled  and  married, 
and  naturalized  in  the  United  States,  she  constantly  refuses 
to  release  from  hers,  American  citizens  impressed  into  it, 
whenever  she  can  give  for  a  reason,  that  they  were  either 
settled  or  married  within  her  dominions."  The  extent  of 
this  is,  that  Great-Britain  in  time  of  war,  makes  use  of  all 
her  citizens  ;  she  is  entitled  to  it  by  the  law  of  nations  ;  she 
is  entitlfd  to  all  her  natural  bom  subjects,  for  it  has  been  al- 
ready demonstrated  that  a  natural  born  subject  can  never 
null  his  allegiance,  and  she  is  entitled  to  the  naturalized  for 
the  protection  she  grants.  It  is  therefore  to  be  inferred,  that 
a  subject  owes  his  greatest  allegiance  to  his  natural  country, 
and  that  he  ever  remains  amenable  to  it,  should  he  return  or 
be  taken,  and  that  becoming  the  citizen  of  another  country- 
is  his  own  act  and  care.  America  acts  at  present,  on  the 
same  principles.  I  will  only  suppose  for  fancy's  sake,  a  war 
should  break  out  between  America  and  Spain,  would  not 
America  avail  herself  of  the  services  of  such  British  sub- 
jects as  had  become  naturalized  citizens,  and  if  Spain  re- 
monstrated to  Great-Britain,  that  many  of  her  natural  born 
subjects  were  in  the  service  of  America,  and  as  they  were 
at  peace,  she  ought  to  prevent  them  from  infringing  on  the 
laws  of  neutrality,  and  if,  in  consequence  of  that  remon- 
strance, Great-Britain  should  demand  her  subjects,  would 
America  deliver  them  up  or  cease  employing  them,  would 
not  she  answer,  she  was  entitled  to  their  services  for  the  pro- 
tection she  gave  them,  and  as  naturalized  citizens,  they  were 
subjects  so  long  as  they  remained  in  her  territories.  Nay, 
atthis  present  moment,  are  there  not  many  British  natural  born 
subjects  in  the  service  of  America,  though  apprehensions 
of  a  war  with  that  nation  are  entertained.  What  grounds 
there  are  for  bringing  forward  such  avowed  charges  of  in- 
consistencies against  Great-Britain,  must  be  a  matter  of  seri- 
ous reflection,  when  on  examination  they  are  found  to  ope- 
*ate  as  unfavorably  to  America.  But  I  wish  not  to  extenuate 


20 

or  set  do-wn  ought  in  malice,  though  from  such  a  gloomy 
cloud  no  one  can  presage  the  mischief  and  evils  that  may  en- 
sue ;  -ill  that  is  individually  left  is  duty,  which  like  the  well 
constructed  conductor,  muy  attract  the  fury  of  the  storm 
while  it  bursts  harmless  over  our  heads. 

The  power  of  satisfactorily  combating  the  next  considera- 
tion is  beyond  my  reach,  for  wunt  of  proper  and  official  re- 
ferences, but  all  evils  arising  from  its  present  unsettled  state, 
would  be  quieted  by  a  strict  adherence  to  the  law  of  nations  ; 
yet  there  is  one  point  that  excites  our  joy  and  would  our 
surprise,  was  not  America  prolific  to  a  proverb  ;  but  the 
m  any  thousand  suitors  she  has  to  boast  of  even  exceeds  all 
allow,  jice,  was  it  not  known  that  from  the  south  to  the  port 
of  New- York  inclusive,  the  greatest  proportion,  if  not  five- 
sevenths  of  her  mariners,  are  foreigners-.  I  do  heartily  joui 
the  Pamphlet  in  considering  that  a  good  understanding  ought 
to  be  cultivated  faithfully  by  both,  and  that  amicable  ar- 
rangements between  the  two  nations  may  be  adopted.  I 
hope  ne  is  seriotm.  The  idea,  that  it  Would  not  be  extrav- 
agant to  make  it  a  question,  whether  Great-Britain  would 
not  suffer  more  by  withdrawing  her  seamen  from  the  mer- 
chant vessels  of  the  United  States,  than  her  enemies  would 
suffer  from-  the  addition  of  them  to  the  crews  of  her  ships 
of  war  and  cruisers,  is  humorous  enough,  and  reminds  us  of 
two  people  quarrelling  for  an  oyster,  when  a  third  steps  in, 
opens  it,  and  eats  the  oyster,  and  gives  each  a  shell.  But  pray, 
how  would  France  like  this  assistance  to  Great-Britain  ?  She 
perhaps  might  be  easily  satisfied  on  being  told  it  was  a  novel 
doctrine,  and  was  onty  meant  to  operate  as  an  experiment, 
which  if  not  found  to  answer,  might  at  a  future  day,  be  al- 
tered. As  to  the  preparatory  residence  of  five  years  for  sail- 
ors before  they  are  naturalized,  it  may  and  no  doubt  is  the 
law,  but  I  would  not  hazard  a  bet  that  there  were  not  more 
naturalized  after  five  months,  than  after  five  years  residence, 
but  that  abuse  is  no  doubt  without  the  knowledge  of  govern- 
ment, and  probably,  like  many  other  general  observations, 
raay  be  exaggerated.  If  a  discontinuance  of  impressments 
on  the  high  seas,  will  preclude  an  actual  collision  between 
the  interfering  cl  Jms,  a  complete  ascertainment  and  defined 
right  of  the  principles  that  constitute  the  justice  of  those 
claims,  strikes  at  the  root  of  the  evil,  and  must  more  effi- 
caciously prevent  collision.  Whatever  opinion  the  author 
of  the  Pamphlet  may  entertain  on  the  pretensions  or  lit  hts 
exercised  by  the  British  on  the  narrow  seas,  he  certainly 
lass  mistaken  and  misrepresented  those  ancient  prerogatives 


by  denominating  them  obsolete  and  indefensible.  It  is  evi- 
dent even  by  'nis  own  arguments,  that  they  have  been  recog- 
nized as  lute  as  when  the  treaty  of  Amiens  was  discussed, 
and  that  they  have  ever  been  a  subject  of  jealousy  and  mort- 
ification to  the  rivalship  or  ambition  of  France,  and  have,  at 
all  time-serving  opportunities,  been  made  whimpering  cau- 
ses of  complaint,  which  a  sugar  plumb  has  lulled,  every 
man  of  reading  knows.  But  my  task  re  not  to  inquire 
•whether  England  is  willing  to  sacrifice  the  honor  ekie  to  her 
and  which  she  has  supported  through  so  many  bloody  con- 
flicts and  difficulties  ;  whether  the  threats  of  neutral  Amer- 
ica are  to  palsy  her  vigorous  arm,  whilst  the  genkis  of  rev- 
olutionary France,  snatches  off  the  prize  to  adorn  her  varie- 
gated flag  ;  whether  her  jurisdiction  is  to  be  confined  to  the 
narrowest  parts  of  the  narrowed  seas>  or  whether  by  the 
same  undaunted  courage  that  has  ever  chaise terized  her  in 
distress,  she  wiii  break  the  shackles  that  are  forging  to  fet- 
ter her  liberties.  Whatever  may  be  the  result  of  pending 
negotiation,  is  dotibtfi.il ;  if  America  obtains  greater  con- 
cessions than  those  hitherto  made,  it  will  be  an  advantage  in 
which  she  may  have  reason  to  exult ;  if  she  obtain  the  same 
it  will  be  an  advantage  in  which  she  may  have  reason  to  be 
satisfied,  but  there  is  little  prospect  when  in  the  instructions 
of  the  Pamphlet,  we  find  it  thus  writtew.  u  Frona  every 
view  of  the  subject,  it  is  reasonable  to  expect  that  the  ex- 
ception of  the  narrow  seas,  from  the  stipulation  against  im- 
pressments, will  not  be  inflexibly  maintained.  Should  it  be 
so,  your  negotiation  will  be  at  an  end"  1  1  !  !  Have  ages  pas- 
sed away  in  ignorance,  and  has  England,  untaught  for  so  long 
a  period,  been  adhering  to  a  system  unreasonable,  which  if 
abandoned,  she  may  contemplate  in  sad  repentance,  as  an 
irreparable  injury  to  her  reverwae,  commerce  and  manufac- 
tures. By  what  law  is  America  justly  entitled  to  make  these 
demands  ?  If  she  is  determined  to  disregard  ancient  prm- 
leges  even  though  they  involve  the  nearest  interests  of  anoth- 
er country  ;  if  she  is  determittied  to  sacrifice  their  goodl  to 
her  prosperty,  she  is  only  playing  the  game  of  revolution- 
ary novelty,  and  setting  up  a  doctrine  that  may  be  overthrown 
by  its  own  arguments.  This  is  modern  philosophy,  the 
»€w  lights  that  are  only  extinguished  by  the  bayonet.  By 
an  easy  transition  every  thing  that  is  ancient,  is  obsolete, 
that  which  is  obsolete,  may  be  analyzed,  reduced  to  first  prin- 
ciples, set  afloat,  and  be  contended  for  again  ;  where  then 
is  the  security  of  long  enjoying  an  advantage  evidently  ex- 
torted by  threat,  and  reluctantly  ceded  through  fear.  Will 


22 

ttot  Great-Britain  watch  her  opportunity  to  demand  her 
rights  by  using  the  same  means  as  were  used  towards  her, 
and  if  they  fail,  will  she  not  resort  to  force.  But  perhaps  it 
may  be  sidd,  she  has  reached  the  zenith  of  her  glory  ;  her 
boasted  greatness  and  triumphant  navy,  are  only  to  be  seen 
recorded  in  the  page  of  history  ;  her  panegyrist  will  disguise, 
as  he  indites,  that  she  was  humbled  and  conceded  to  de- 
mands ;  that  her  concessions  undermined  her  power — it  is 
vanished — it  is  no  where  to  be  found  !  While  America,  ex- 
ulting in  her  prowess,  contemplates  her  grandeur ;  nay,  in 
the  midst  of  the  epithalmium,  she  may  unexpectedly  be- 
hold the  object  of  her  ambition  seized  upon  by  trance.— 
Surely,  foresight  and  penetration  constitute  the  greatest  wis- 
dom of  a  statesman,  and  the  man  whose  measures  are  only 
suited  to  the  day,  is  wrong  in  not  having  more  maturely 
weighed  them — but  events  are  recorded  in  the  book  of  late, 
and  the  wisest  measures,  like  the  best  of  men,  do  not  always 
meet  with  their  deserts. 

On  a  btxsis  of  reciprocity,  what  has  America  to  give  to 
Great-Brit  an,  that  will  induce  the  latter  to  cede  her  rights  ; 
and  what  right  does  Great-Britain  avowedly  exercise,  that 
she  is  not  entitled  to  by  the  luw  of  nations,  nay,  which  Amer- 
ica herself  in  case  of  war,  would  not  use  ;  and  why  so  sudden- 
ly does  America  complain  when  she  has  known  these  rights 
to  be  coeval  to  her  discovery  ;  that  they  were  the  ancient 
rights  of  England,  which  America,  while  a  colony,  contend- 
ed for  in  junction  with  the  mother  country  ;  and  that  they 
are  the  same  rights  which  were  admitted  at  her  independ- 
ence, when  confirmed  by  treaty.  The  Pamphlet  undisguis- 
edly  asserts,  the  negociation  shall  cease,  it  the  exception  of 
the  narrow  seas  from  the  stipulation  aguinst  impressments, 
is  inflexibly  maintained.  Thus  determining  England  shall 
cede  aright  she  has  ever  tenaciously  reserved,  to  satisfy  the 
ambition  or  interest  of  America,  and  that  without  tendering 
any  other  advantage  as  a  consideration. 

How  are  we  to  regard  the  Pamphlet  but  as  the  precursor 
of  a  manifesto,  and  the  latter  is  the  usual  harbinger  of  war — 
for  what  purpose — to  repel  an  innovation  ?  No.  to  extirpate 
an  ancient  privilege.  To  protect  neutral  rights  ?  No,  to  di- 
minish those  of  belligerents.  To  protect  the  natural  ties  of 
allegiance  conformable  to  the  laws  of  nations  ?  No,  to  set 
them  adrift  and  break  the  very  bonds  of  society.  To  defend 
the  justice  due  to  nations  ?  No,  to  retidn  that  which  belongs 
to  them,  and  refuse  to  surrender  unto  Caesar  the  things  that 
ate  Caesar's ;  to  give  encouragement  to  such  nations  as  in  re- 


S3 

gard  to  America,  should  be  considered  neutrals ;  to  enlist 
and  detain  her  seamen  with  impunity  :  France  might  thea 
find  ships  and  America  men.  Sweden,  Denmark  and  Spain, 
and  in  short,  every  other  neutral,  would  be  alike  entitled  to> 
the  physical  force  of  America.  These  are  the  doctrines 
contended  for  hi  the  Pamphlet,  and  these  are  the  doctrines 
for  which  the  trumpet  is  sounded  in  the  south,  by  the  rest- 
less, the  desperate,  and  such  as 

Quarrel  with  minc'd  pies,  and  disparage 
Their  best  and  dearest  friend,  plumb  porridge. 

But  amidst  the  cooler  and  more  considerate  tempers  of  the 
north,  and  while  we  see  an  equally  determined  sentiment 
to  support  their  honor  and  vindicate  their  country's  rights, 
pervading  every  unprejudiced,  enlightened  and  independent 
mind,  we  respect  the  solidity,  discretion  and  prudence  of 
their  opinions ;  as  the  reverencer  of  ancient  customs,  we 
honor  those  minds,  who,  amidst  the  chaos,  still  maintain  the 
wise  and  wholesome  doctrine,  that  a  natural  subject  cannot 
expatriate  himself.  Had  the  Pamphlet  argued  from  this 
principle,  we  should  have  bowed  to  his  work  instead  of  ad- 
miring his  ingenuity  ;  but  he  has  taken  the  ground  of  neu- 
tral protection,  which  certainly  protects  and  allows  expatri- 
ation, though  it  is  worthy  serious  reflection  and  attention, 
that  the  refusal  to  deliver  up  the  seamen  who  lately  escaped 
and  were  taken  into  the  American  ship  Chesapeake,  was 
predicated  on  their  being  native  Americans  ;  yet  neverthe- 
less, we  are  left  in  the  sophism,  that  if  Great-Britain  demand 
her  own  citizens,  it  is  to  be  answered,  they  are  under  a  neu- 
tral flag ;  if  she  demand  such  Americans  as  have  enlisted 
into  her  service,  it  is  to  be  answered  they  are  American  cit- 
izens. More  flagrant  inconsistencies  cannot  be  imagined  !  ! 
Yet  one  word  more,  is  it  not  a  duty  in  a  neutral  if  her  citi- 
zens will  persist  in  entering  into  the  service  of  a  belligerent, 
contrary  to  the  impartiality  the  neutral  should  maintain,  that 
those  citizens  should  be  punished  as  soon  as  caught.  If  the 
neutral  would  observe  a  rigid  neutrality,  it  is  her  duty  rigid- 
ly to  punish  such  as  transgress  it.  Were  that  the  case,  we 
should  hear  much  less  of  these  complaints  that  are  circula- 
ted with  so  much  avidity.  This  would  operate  as  a  check, 
but  still  a  just  debt  would  be  due  to  the  belligerent  which  ought 
to  be  liquidated,  while  the  immoral  transgressor  should  be 
made  to  suffer  and  compensate  the  fraud  he  had  committed. 

From  the  general  complexion  of  the  Pamphlet,  we  have 
to  fear  war,  and  if  it  is  declared  on  the  grounds  contained 


therein,  such  as  have  perused  these  pages,  will  be  able  tor 
decide  on  the  justice  of  the  cause.  I  shall  be  ready  to  allow, 
when  causes  and  effects  in  regard  to  the  affair  of  the  Ches- 
apeake have  been  investigated  by  both  governments  and, 
made  known,  that  we  shall  then  be  able  to  form  a  just  opin- 
ion by  perusing  their  contents,  and  we  shall  then  know  the 
true  grounds,  and  whether  they  arose  from  the  points  being 
unsettled  and  liable  to  misunder? tanding  by  the  two  countries, 
or  whether  they  proceeded  from  the  British  government  as 
direct  acts  of  hostility,  for  in  no  point  of  view  has  the  con- 
duct appeared  to  .me  otherwise  than  as  proceeding  from  a 
misunderstanding,  or  else  a  direct  hostility.  The  other  epi- 
thets bestowed,  being  unbecoming  solecisms,  that,  in  them- 
selves, betray  their  pedigree.  The  affair  of  the  Chesapeake 
may  be  made  the  cause  of  war,  but  at  the  sume  time  it  can- 
not be  denied,  if  the  instructions  in  the  Pamphlet  are  rigidly 
adhered  to,  but  that  America  was,  prior  to  that  event,  in- 
creasing her  demands,  and  contending  for  new  concessions 
and  exactions,  Great-Britain  would  be  justified  in  withholding, 
conformable,  as  we  have  proved,  to  the  law  of  nations. 

The  advantages  of.a  war  to  the  northern  states  of  America, 
would  be  inconsiderable,  with  even  an  indulgence,  that  it 
should  be  prosecuted  with  a  success  equal  to  its  wishes  ;  the 
acquisition  of  territory  would  only  weaken  the  feeble  union, 
and  render  its  overgrown  bulk  too  unwieldly  to  be  supported 
by  laws,  without  the  aid  of  more  military  than  seems,  either 
to  be  relished  or  thought  necessary  by  the  inhabitants  of  the 
United  States.  Should  the  inhabitants  and  subjects  in  the 
British  colonies  be  inclined  to  resist,  their  subjugation  would 
cost  more  blood  and  treasure  than  they  were  worth,  and  the 
honor  of  adding  Quebec  to  the  United  States,  might  require 
the  genius  of  a  Washington,  or  the  valor  of  a  Wolfe.  It  prob- 
ably would  be  defended  with  obstinacy,  and  the  lives  of  many 
men  would  be  sacrificed  to  un  object,  which,  when  obtained, 
would  more  concentrate  the  force  of  Great-Britain,  and  ease 
her  revenue,  than  detriment  or  disable  her  power.  Whilst 
useless  wild  countries  were  acquired,  and  speculators  in 
rags,  were  dreaming  on  the  profits  and  settlements  they  or 
their  orphan  families  might  make  a  century  hence,  and, 
while  the  yet  uncultivated  interior  that  already  is  possessed, 
was  left  in  a  state  of  nature,  or  poorly  cultivated  for  want 
of  population,  should  we  be  again  astonished  with  accounts 
of  new  regions  more  wonderful  and  fertile  than  any  yet  dis- 
covered ;  new  sources  for  emigration  would  be  opened,  and 
the  physical  force  of  the  country  would  be  thus  weakened  and 


25 

Scattered  ;  along  the  coast  the  towns  would  be  liable  to  be 
demolished ;  commerce  would  be  ruined  ;  the  neutrals  of 
Em-ope  would  enjoy  it,  or  the  friends  of  England.  Bonds, 
mortgages,  notes,  and  paper  money  Would  depreciate  ;  agri^ 
culture  would  go  back,  and  little  more  grain  be  raised  thai! 
what  was  wanted  for  the  farmer's  use  ;  distresses  would  en- 
sue and  the  interfe  rente  of  legislative  acts  would  probably 
only  mkke  the  evil  the  greater,  and  at  once  destroy  all  pub- 
lic confidence.  The  enemy  Would  be1  creating  the  greatest 
misery,  and  without  affording  an  opportunity  of  suffering 
any  very  material  one  on  his  part,  perhaps  it  might  be  ulti- 
mately of  service  and  induce  him  to  employ  his  capital  hi 
othei1  channels,  or  to  open  communications  and  obtain  else- 
where what  America  had  formerly  supplied,  or  supposing 
him  to  be  injured  and  suffer,  yet  will  that benefit  the  United 
St  ites,  or  will  he  be  compelled  to  accept  such  terms  as  A- 
merica  shall  dictate  or  even  to  give  up  the  point  he  contend- 
ed'for.  If  Ore  at- Britain  determines  on  not  yielding  to  the 
demands  of  America,  she'\vill  act  after  every  consideration 
from  a  thorough  sense  of  the  necessity  ther<e  is,  not  only  both 
as  to  her  commerce  and  manufactures, but  even  her  existence, 
to  adhere  to  her  ancient  privileges,  so  that  if  they  are  wrested 
from  her,  France,  having  no  longer  to  dread  her  enmity,  will 
seize  them,  and  America  will  be  left  to  settle  her  high  de- 
mands with  the  great  nation.  On  the  contrary,  I  hope  peace 
may  be  preserved  without  any  expense  of  honor  on  either 
side,  in  consequence  of  the  conduct  of  the  Leopard  ;  that  the 
differences  may  be  adjusted,  and  the  proper  concessions 
necessary  may  be  mutually  made,  if  mutually  due  ;  and  in- 
deed, if  this  is  the  only  cause,  we  have  little  to  dread,  but  on 
the  contrary,  may  turn  our  minds  to  the  enlargement  of  the 
great  national  prosperity,  agriculture  and  its  improvement, 
as  it  is  to  be  considered  as  the  great  staple  commodity  of 
the  country,  we  may  bend  our  attention  to  ensuring  a  regu- 
lar market  in  the  West-Indies,  and  Great-Britain  for  our 
superfluous  produce  ;  to  the  former  in  particular,  a  door  is 
open  that  might  lead  to  great  and  solid  benefits  by  raising 
and  supplying  them  with  such  articles,  as  the  sugar  estates 
require,  at  a  cheaper  rate  than  they  can  raise  them  them- 
selves, this  might  be  much  increased  and  is  worthy  attention, 
but  to  render  it  effectual,  a  confidence  must  be  first  estab- 
lished. The  sentiments  of  liberty,  however  pleasing,  are 
not  to  be  promulgated  amongst  a  people  for  the  purposes  of 
anarchy  and  confusion,  their  laws  are  to'be  equally  respect- 
ed ;  nor  is  it  to  be  supposed  that  the  threatening  language  of 

D 


26 

starving,  is  likely,  to  convey  conciliatory  or  friendly  ideas  j 
no,  they  may  think,  however  inoffensive  at  first,  yet  at  last 
they  may  meet  the  fate  of  the  poor  mouse  that  affords  Gri- 
malkin her  amusement,  but  which  ends  in  death.  They  may 
ivish  to  have  a  hole  to  fly  to  as  a  security,  and  consequently  be 
induced  to  cultivate,  though  at  a  greater  expense,  many  ar- 
ticles, which,  were  it  not  for  threats,  they  would  import  from 
this  country.  But  the  object  of  these  pages  being  accom- 
plished, it  would  be  irrevelent  to  discant  largely  on  a  sub- 
ject that  would  embrace  matter  for  another  publication,  and 
which,  from  an  abler  hand,  would  be  gratifying  to  the  citizens 
of  America,  when  it  displayed  the  blessing  held  put  by  a 
continuance  of  peace,  and  the  advantages  they  derived  from 
neutrality  in  spite  of  the  clamorous  and  speculative  adven- 
turers that  occasionaly  reap  great  profits  from  illegal  trade, 
and  were  silent  on  the  subject,  while  if  they  met  with  losses  or 
capture,  were  incensed  and  created  disturbances  in  the  minds 
of  such  as  were  incapable  of  forming  accurate  opinions  on 
^.he  merits  of  the  case,  and  who  were  sensible  of  the  adage, 
that  one  story  is  good  till  another  is  heard. 

BUZURG  MIHIR, 


M62780 


Ir 


'  2. 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


RY 


